Replies to post #93625 on Biotech Values

[rkrw]

Even if you don't believe CO2 is contributing to global warming, certainly the oceans are dramatically changing with pollution.

We have the Great Pacific Garbage Patch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

Coral Reefs are also dying off which impacts the entire ocean food chain:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/ap_on_sc/us_world_without_corals

[jbog]

Zipjet,


Shortly, we'll be talking about the rapid growth in acid rain and the toll it's taking on our worlds plants and aquatic system.

Our great scientists again will prove that they don't and can't understand how complex the earth is because as of right now the main cause looks to be that we changed from Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) in our search to repair the Ozone System in the 80's.

The ACS Journal of Physical Chemistry recently reported that the scientists didn't know that HCFC's would create oxalic acid as they break down in our upper atmosphere.

Oh Well...........

[exwannabe]

OT: "- we do not understand all the processes (including feed back loops) that lead to temperature change;

We do not understand all the processes within the human body.

"- without that understanding, we cannot create models/simulations that can meaningfully predict the future;"

Without that understanding we can not model/predict how individuals will react.

"- that we do not really know whether warmer is better or worse (Plimer supports warmer);"

We do not even know what ideal health states are.

"- that it is folly with such limitations and at enormous cost to attempt to change the course of the earths temperature. "

Thus it is folly to attempt with such limitations and great cost to improve change the human condition.

-------

Just a few points other points.

. It's not a matter of warmer vs cooler, but the rate of change that is the key issue.

. That climate varied in the past and was not driven by CO2 is a complete straw argument. Nobody denies this.

. The first order effects of human induced CO2 are fairly clear. True they are only something like 30%(?) of the total effect prediccted in present models (the rest being mainly due to the temp driven water vapour positive feedback), but is fairly hard to deny.

And on a practical point. Why is reducing our fossil fuel needs such a costly bad idea? Nukes, efficiency, alt energy are all pluses on both CO2 and the US economy.